This week, the influential science journal Nature, under the headline "Banish cronyism," called for the departure of the cancer agency's leadership.

"If the institute hopes to recruit independent peer reviewers of the caliber that have just departed in droves, its leadership must change at the very highest levels. Mansour's removal is essential," the journal stated. "Such housecleaning is also the only way to begin rebuilding the trust of the Texas public, which has every right to expect that the $2 billion as yet unspent by the CPRIT be awarded through unimpeachable peer review."

Asked about the Nature editorial, Mansour said Thursday he is looking forward to working with the cancer agency for many years to come.

In the wake of the Gilman and Sharp resignations, the agency is trying to not only find credible replacements for them but also to determine how best to allocate its funds to tackle cancer.

During its first three years, the cancer agency focused most of its funds on basic research. The $18 million grant to M.D. Anderson, which has been retracted for further review, was its largest foray into funding efforts to speed efforts by businesses to translate research drugs into hospital treatments.

The resigning scientists cited concerns that some members of the agency's oversight committee used undue influence to ensure certain commercial grants, such as M.D. Anderson's, got funded.

But in a letter obtained by the Chronicle, the state's top three political leaders appear to have endorsed a move by the agency to spend more money on commercialization and less on basic research.

'A solid foundation'

Writing to Mansour, Perry - along with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus - said now is a good time to evaluate how the agency will spend its funds.

"CPRIT laid a solid foundation for this endeavor, by focusing its efforts and funding predominantly on basic scientific research," the letter states. "It is now time for CPRIT to take further steps to fulfill its statutory mission and expedite innovation that will deliver new cancer treatments to patients within three to five years."

A spokeswoman for the governor, Allison Castle, said Perry was not directing the agency to distribute more money to drug companies and less to academic institutions.

"It is up to the scientific experts at CPRIT to determine where specifically the money should go to make that happen," she said.

Mansour, who since 2005 has donated $55,000 to Perry's gubernatorial campaigns, said he welcomed this week's support from Perry, Dewhurst and Straus, who each appoint members of the oversight committee he chairs. Mansour also said scientists would not take a back seat to commercial interests.

"We will rely heavily on scientific experts to determine the most effective way to distribute funds going forward, and we're excited about the next chapter for CPRIT," Mansour said.

Although he signed the letter to Mansour, Straus was less effusive in his assessment of the agency.

"I have serious concerns about how the agency awards grants," he said. "I believe CPRIT needs substantial structural changes in order to rebuild public confidence, and the upcoming report from the State Auditor's Office should provide importance guidance for improvements moving forward."

Closely watched

An independent ethicist, Paul Wolpe of Emory University, said it's difficult to imagine how the agency can retain its credibility nationally absent the resignation of its leadership, including Mansour.

He noted the agency, which is the country's largest single grantor of cancer research grants outside of the National Cancer Institute, is being closely watched after the departures of Gilman and Sharp.